CARPIO-MORALES vs.

CA
G.R. No. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015

FACTS:

A complaint was filed by Atty. Renato Bondal and Nicolas Enciso VI before the Ombudsman
against Binay Jr. and other public officers of Makati City charging them of Plunder and violation of RA
3019, otherwise known as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”, in connection with five (5) phases
of the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building.

A Special Panel of Investigators was created by the Ombudsman to conduct a fact-finding

investigation, charged them with six (6) administrative cases for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty,
and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and six (6) criminal cases for violation of
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, Malversation of Public Funds, and Falsification of Public Documents (OMB
cases).

Before Binay et al.’s filing of their counter-affidavit, the Ombudsman issued, the subject
preventive order, placing Binay et al, under preventive suspension for not more than six (6) months
without pay, during the pendency of the OMB cases. The Ombudsman ruled that the requisites for the
preventive suspension of a public officer are present, finding that:

(a) The evidence of Binay, Jr. et al’s guilt was strong;

(1) The losing bidders and members of the Bids and Awards Committee of Makati City
had attested to the irregularities attending the Makati Parking Buikding Project;
(2) The documents on record negated the publication of bids; and
(3) The disbursement vouchers, checks and official receipts showed the release of
funds; and
(b) Binay, Jr. et al. were administratively charged with Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty,
and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. Said charges, if proven to be true,
warrant removal from public service, and
(c) Binay, Jr. et al’s respective positions give them access to public records and allow them to
influence possible witnesses; hence, their continued stay in office may prejudice the
investigation relative to the OMB cases filed against them.

Binay contends that he could not be held administratively liable for any anomalous activity
attending any of the five (5) phases of the Makati Parking Building project since (a) Phases I and II were
undertaken before he was elected as Mayor of Makati in 2010; and (b) Phases III to V transpired during
his first term and that his re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second term effectively condoned his
administrative liability, therefor, if any, thus rendering the administrative cases against him moot and
academic.

In any event, Binay, Jr. claimed that the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order failed to
show that the evidence of guilt presented against him is strong, maintaining that he did not participate in
any of the purported irregularities. In support of his prayer for injunctive relief, Binay, Jr. argued that he
has a clear and unmistakable right to hold public office and that in view of the condonation doctrine, as
well as the lack of evidence to sustain the charges against him, his suspension from office would deprive
the electorate of the services of the person they have conscientiously chosen and voted in office.

In view of the CA’s supervening issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, Ombudsman filed a
supplemental petition, before this Court, arguing that the condonation doctrine is irrelevant to the
determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong for the purposes of issuing preventive suspension
orders. The Ombudsman also maintained that a reliance on the condonation doctrine is a matter of
defense, which should have been raised by Binay Jr. before it during the administrative proceedings, and
that, at any rate, there is no condonation because Binay, Jr. committed the subject of the OMB complaint
after his re-election in 2013.

ISSUES:
 1. Whether or not CA has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a TRO and/or WPI enjoining the
implementation of a preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman.
2. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and eventually, the
WPI enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr.
based on the condonation doctrine.

HELD:

1. OMB contends that the CA has no jurisdiction to issue any provisional injunctive writ against
her office to enjoin its preventive suspension orders. As basis, she invokes the first paragraph of Section
14, RA 6770 in conjunction with her office’s independence under the 1987 Constitution. She advances
the idea that “in order to further ensure Ombudman Office’s independence, RA 6770 likewise insulated it
from judicial intervention, claiming that said writs may work just as effectively as direct harassment or
political pressure would.

The concept of Ombudsman’s independence cannot be invoked as basis to insulate the

Ombudsman from judicial power constitutionally vested unto the courts. Courts are apolitical bodies,
which are ordained to act as impartial tribunals and apply even justice to all. Hence, the Ombudsman’s
notion that it can be exempt from an incident of judicial power – that is a provisional writ of injunction
against a preventive suspension order – clearly strays from the concept’s rationale of insulating the office
from political harassment or pressure.

2. As earlier established, records disclose that the CA’s resolutions directing the issuance of the
assailed injunctive writs were all hinged on cases enunciating the condonation doctrine. To recount, the
March 16, 2015 Resolution directing the issuance of the subject TRO was based on the case of Governor
Garcia Jr., while the April 16, 2015 Resolution directing the issuance of the subject WPI was based on the
cases of Aguinaldo, Salalima, Mayor Garcia, and again, Governor Garcia Jr. Thus, by merely following
settled precedents on the condonation doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained “good law”, it
cannot be concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its legal attribution
above. Accordingly, the WPI against the Ombudman’s preventive suspension order was correctly issued.

With this, the ensuing course of action should have been for the CA to resolve the main petition
for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP. No. 139453 on the merits. However, considering that the Ombudsman, on
October 9, 2015, had already found Binay, Jr. administratively liable and imposed upon him the penalty
dismissal, which carries the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, the
present administrative charges against him, the said CA petition appears to have been mooted. As
initially intimated, the preventive suspension order is only an ancillary issuance that, at its core, serves
the purpose of assisting the Ombudsman in its investigation. It therefore has no more purpose – and
perforce, dissolves, upon the termination of the office’s process of investigation in the instant
administrative case.